<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class="">I agree that it’s tricky. The attempt to stretch the complexity of the construction hid the flaw in thinking through the expression.<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">While I accept that this is canon, I remember the old days when marquS spoke about the reason that we can’t as a group invent new words because a newbie who bought TKD and the other official Klingon materials would have no way to know that {‘I’} meant “armpit” (which was later canonized, to the merriment of all).</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It’s gotten to the point that a Klingonist can’t rely solely on Simon & Schuster to give them everything they need to translate Klingon in either direction. There is no longer a publication that provides what we in the KLI have collected to be the materials needed to know the language.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">You now need TKD to provide The Constitution level explanation of the grammar, boQwI’ for the vocabulary, and access to sufficient canon to explain the use of {-moH} with two objects or the use of {qa’} as the second verb in SAO, which at its heart is a Sentence As Subject tagged on to a Sentence As Object. The use of the semicolon in the English translation makes it clear that this is more than a simple use of context to explain the subject of {qa’}. The sentence before the semicolon is the subject of {qa’}.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">But why limit that to {qa’}?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">It’s only a matter of time before a new TKD will need a section on SAS.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">And how many other new grammatical constructions will we get that could never be derived from TKD, while there will never be a third edition?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">wejpuH.<br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Nov 18, 2021, at 10:21 AM, SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" class="">sustel@trimboli.name</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 11/18/2021 10:04 AM, De'vID wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:CA+7zAmNQZ2wpKQQHKOWhDYsdxjAwivjFFXh4rwSLWp85mWWPQQ@mail.gmail.com" class="">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, 18 Nov 2021 at 15:17,
SuStel <<a href="mailto:sustel@trimboli.name" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">sustel@trimboli.name</a>>
wrote:<br class="">
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="">
<div class="">I agree that turning an entire sentence-as-object
construction into a subordinate clause heads toward too
much complexity, but given the relative simplicity of the
rest of it, I don't think this reaches the limit.<br class="">
</div>
<div dir="auto" class=""><p class=""><b class="">pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e' qa'chugh, maQap.</b><i class=""><br class="">
If we use phasers instead of swords, we'll win.</i></p><p class="">If the sentence-as-object construction were any more
complicated, it would probably be too much for me to
accept it stylistically. But I have no problem with this
one.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">While I had no problem understanding the intended meaning of
the Klingon sentence, I wonder if the {-chugh} isn't attached to
the wrong thing. The way it's written, it looks like "we use
phasers" is a statement, not a conditional.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Maybe it should be {pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; yan DIlo' 'e'
qa'}. I know that looks weird, but the grammar of {'e' qa'} is
weird.</div>
</blockquote><p class="">You're right! We mustn't think of <b class="">pu' DIlo'; yan DIlo' 'e'
qa'</b> as a verbal phrase.</p><p class="">Maybe this can be simplified using the common shortcuts like so:</p><p class=""><b class="">pu' DIlo'chugh, maQap; </b><b class=""><b class="">yan qa'.<br class="">
</b></b><i class="">If we use phasers, we will succeed. It replaces
swords.<br class="">
</i></p><p class="">I don't know whether this works in the more formal style,
however.</p><p class="">Tricky.</p><p class=""><br class="">
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
SuStel
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://trimboli.name/">http://trimboli.name</a></pre>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br class="">tlhIngan-Hol mailing list<br class=""><a href="mailto:tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org" class="">tlhIngan-Hol@lists.kli.org</a><br class="">http://lists.kli.org/listinfo.cgi/tlhingan-hol-kli.org<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></body></html>